Seems far more reasonable than letting things stagnate for years. It's what chrome is doing with sha1 certs.
Give a timeframe, if you don't get your upgrade in then too bad.
On the other hand, the packets moved through the wires to send this comment to HN and the ones moved to send this comment to your computer are easily managed by dozens of different people and a handful of different companies with different agendas, budgets, needs and even skills. Cisco definitely manufactured and sold most of the devices out there, but they surely don't manage them or decide when they're upgraded. It gets worse, because actually there's not only Cisco out there.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but just look at the slow IPv6 adoption, despite the efforts of all the big players (Google, Cisco, Juniper, Microsoft, Linux, ... !) supporting it in a timely manner, it's still not there.
"Upgrade or suffer" rarely works in practice. Rendering (or rather the lack of rendering) malformed XHTML is a great example of this
> Seriously, that's your argument? Layers are not holy untouchable pillars of a global religion
If layers aren't 'untouchable pillars', then why have we not fixed the ones we have? IPSec, IP, TCP and TLS are all a jumbled rotten mess. Poor layering has resulted in a lot of warts like inefficient or underleveraged handshakes and the lack of things like mobility, multi-homing, authentication, reliable datagrams and stream multiplexing. What is really being said here is yes, the layers we have (TCP, NAT) really are untouchable pillars.
Cramming workarounds in to a higher, application-specific, layers doesn't benefit the wider Internet.